Configuración del filtro de certificados

Unlike study 1, which had four dependent variables (victim blame, perpetrator blame, assault severity, and resistibility) only three factors were isolated in this study: victim blame, assault severity and resistibility. As predicted, males were more negative than females (judging the assault as less severe, more resistible, and attributing more blame to

the victim). Importantly, all effect sizes in gender differences were moderate to large. As with study 1, these findings lend support to Shaver’s (1975) defensive attribution theory where the male respondents made defensive attributions in the interest of harm avoidance. In this case they viewed the victim as blameworthy and considered the assault more resistible which may have been an attempt to affirm the same event could not happen to them. The finding that males were more negative than females is consistent with the findings from numerous studies (see Davies 2011 for a review) and suggests that it is important to educate men regarding the impact of rape on male victims, particularly as a high proportion of men are represented in the police force; often the first point of contact for victims who choose to report.

It was also predicted that the female perpetrated assault would be considered less severe and more resistible than the male perpetrated assault and the male perpetrator blamed more (see Davies & Rogers, 2006 for a review). Finally it was predicted that the victim of the female perpetrator would receive more blame for the assault, these predictions were also supported. The findings from study two relating to the gender of the perpetrator, are similar to those reported by Struckman-Johnson and Struckman-Johnson (1992) who found that the victim was subject to more to blame and the incident viewed as less traumatic when the perpetrator was female. The tendency of negative victim judgements to increase when the perpetrator is female has been attributed to traditional views of masculinity which prescribe that men should always be ready for and willing to have sex with a woman (Smith et al., 1988).

In this study, the sexual orientation of the victim did not affect the way they were viewed by respondents. This is inconsistent with both study 1 and the majority of previous research (e.g. Davies et al., 2001). However, in a recent study, Davies (unpublished manuscript) found that although the assault was considered less severe, the gay male victim was not subject to more blame. It may be that the respondents in this study endorsed less homophobic beliefs than what is typically expected therefore judgements towards the gay male victim were more positive than usual. However, homophobia was not directly measured in this study. More positive reactions towards gay males may be a result of the difference in the scenario content.

It may be the case that the scenario used in study 2 (where the victim was sexually assaulted as he slept on a train) was considered less preventable and the victim viewed as

having not played a causal role in its occurrence compared to the scenario in study 1 (accepting a lift of a stranger). This is consistent with Shaver’s (1985) theory of responsibility and blame (see page 14); in order for an individual to be attributed blame, they must be considered responsible (i.e. that their behaviour has in some way contributed to the event). Therefore the victim, regardless of their sexual orientation, would not be considered blameworthy as their behaviour did not have a causal role in the assault.

In contrast to study 1, the results from this study did show a significant effect of victim facial appearance; the victim with the feminine face was attributed more blame when the perpetrator was female, as opposed to male. This is surprising as one would expect a victim with a masculine face to be blamed more due to traditional views of masculinity, which suggest that masculine men would be able to resist an assault. This result does however, clearly link to gender stereotype theory, where non-conformity results in backlash (see Moss-Racusin et al, 2010). The respondents may have regarded the feminine victim more negatively as they are viewed to diverge from the masculine stereotype both in appearance and for not resisting the assault. As gender stereotypes are more rigid for men as opposed to women (Moss et al., 2010), the feminine victim in this case is attributed more blame.

As this research has shown that facial appearance has an effect on attributions towards the victim, it seems fair to suggest that a victim may be judged regarding their appearance. As such, future research could extend the findings from this research by exploring the effect of masculine appearance as a whole (e.g. in terms of body type and facial appearance). It seems fair to suggest that masculinity in relation to body type (e.g. muscular appearance) is more easily detectable than masculinity in terms of facial features; therefore, the effect on attributions of blame may be stronger. Also, any individual who comes into contact with male victims will view their body type as well as their facial appearance. In fact, previous gender stereotype research has found that people who are highly masculine or feminine in appearance, not just in the face, elicit the perception that they are masculine or feminine in others ways as well and are expected to behave in other stereotypical masculine ways (Deaux & Lewis, 1984), in the case of male rape to fight of or resist an assault. The effect of body type for male victims on the way they are subsequently viewed is certainly an avenue for future research.

As with the results reported by Sleath and Bull (2010), male rape myth acceptance had a strong relationship with negative judgements of the victim. Consistent with Sleath

and Bull’s (2010) findings, the acceptance of male rape myths has a strong positive relationship with victim blame. As respondents belief in male rape myths increased as did attributions of blame and the perception that the victim could have done more to resist. Respondents with higher RMA also considered the assault as less severe. This suggests that holding stereotypical beliefs about the sexual assault of males increases the likelihood that a person will engage in victim blaming and has wider implications particularly with regards to those who may come into contact with victims. For example, it may be important for individuals who will come into contact with victims to be screened regarding their acceptance of rape myths and provided with the relevant training as a result.

Many of the rape myths contained in the MRMS relate to concepts of masculinity such as ‘any healthy man can resist rape if he really wants’ and imply that as with men who are subject to backlash when they are viewed to violate traditional masculine gender roles (Moss-Racusin et al., 2010), male victims of sexual assault are blamed as a result of not fighting back or resisting, behaviours stereotypically associated with being masculine (Davies, 2002). Kassing, Beesley, and Frey (2005) argued that the acceptance of male rape myths may manifest in the way victims are treated, in particular they may be treated with suspicion as they are viewed, as a man, able to resist the assault. They further argue that educating the public is not enough to dispel such rape myths and that more is needed in order to change the way that such beliefs are developed. The increase in reporting rates as evidenced by figures released by the Home Office (see Home Office Statistical Bulletin, 2011), may contribute to a shift in the acceptance of rape myths. Theory pertaining to attitude development (see pages 16 & 17) suggests that attitudes are formed through personal experiences, the influences of other people, and through emotion responses (Hogg & Vaughan, 2002), and mere exposure to an event effects the evaluation of it (Zajonc, 1968); therefore an increase in exposure in terms of contact with male victims may help to change stereotypical beliefs about male rape. This research extends the current research on male rape victim blaming and its relationship to RMA by highlighting that not only does RMA increase attributions of blame but also contributes to how severe the assault is perceived and whether or not the assault is considered resistible.

In summary, it is evident, that gender stereotypes and traditional views of masculinity are important factors in the attribution of blame towards male victims. This is supported by the finding that the male victim was attributed more negative judgements

when the perpetrator was female, an assault where a male victim would be perceived as more likely to resist compared to an assault involving a male perpetrator. Another important factor in the attribution of blame towards male victims is the acceptance of male rape myths. Consistent with previous research (e.g. Sleath & Bull, 2010), an increase in RMA was related to an increase in blame towards the victim. Interestingly, RMA was also related to how severe and resistible the assault was perceived (higher RMA was related to the assault being perceived as less severe and more resistible). These two concepts relate directly to traditional views of masculinity where a man is expected to be emotionally apt to deal with difficult situations, resulting in the event being considered less severe, and perceived as possessing the physical strength to resist an assault, leading to respondents perceiving the assault as more resistible.

Finally, facial masculinity did significantly affect judgements made towards the victim when the perpetrator was female; the victim with the feminine face was attributed more blame than the victim with the masculine face. Due to the importance of masculinity on how men are judged as victims and the result that masculinity in terms of facial appearance had an effect on judgements, it is important to continue to explore whether masculinity in other aspects (e.g. body type) has an effect on blame attributions.